From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B76B56B003D for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 14:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] use GFP_NOFS in kernel_event() From: Eric Paris In-Reply-To: <20090430141041.c167b4d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090430020004.GA1898@localhost> <20090429191044.b6fceae2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1241097573.6020.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090430141041.c167b4d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:11:34 -0400 Message-Id: <1241201494.3086.3.camel@dhcp231-142.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mpm@selenic.com, clameter@sgi.com, mingo@elte.hu, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk List-ID: On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 14:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:19:33 -0400 > Eric Paris wrote: > > > > Somebody was going to fix this for us via lockdep annotation. > > > > > > > > > > I really didn't forget this, but I can't figure out how to recreate it, > > so I don't know if my logic in the patch is sound. The patch certainly > > will shut up the complaint. > > Do you think we should merge the GFP_NOFS workaround for 2.6.30 and > fix all up nicely for 2.6.31? I'm all for it for 2.6.30, although the patch really should have been the one that gets the audit use case too at >>From me on Mar 18 Subject [PATCH] make inotify event handles use GFP_NOFS http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/18/310 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org